Things Got Ugly!

This week we featured one of Scornette's favorite shows on the cover of the TGIF. Unfortunalty Ggargamel edited the original submission. The original cut line read:

With Bradford dead and his ghost long banished from Betty’s subconscious; Willi in loving possession of his posthumously conceived lovechild (carried by a surrogate, of course); Alexis, the wunderkind-turned-transgender-outcast-villain of the Meade empire on long-term vaca in Paris; Ignacio alive and kicking; and Hilda permanently separated from her smoking hot married boyfriend, one might wonder how ABC will wrap season 3 of this prime time soap opera with a bang. Perhaps with some drama for Betty? Will she go head to head with her new rich boyfriend’s disapproving mother? Will she finally be pulled to the morally questionable but fun, fun, fun side with Mark and Amanda? Well, one can hope. And watch. Ugly Betty airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on ABC. (FPB channels 8 & 11 and in HD on channel 602)

Reports came back that Ggargamel wanted the opening sentence cut because it "rambled." Despite McSAS's best efforts the line was cut. Follwing promises of "evisceration in prose" and the explanition from Scornette that "The rambling was intentional. It was meant to reflect the dramatic tediousness that Ugly Betty manipulates to stay true to it's telenovella roots. THAT'S WHY IT WAS FUNNY!" we unwilling recognize that when writing for someone else...they do get to edit your work.

Even if they are wrong!

Geriatic Barf-O-Rama

This week’s TGIF cover was a challenge; Scornette was not particularly pleased that “Two and a half Men” was being declared a “Future Classic” and was only consoled when told that “Arrested Development” had already won the award in 2004. Although “geriatric barf-o-rama” didn’t make the cut, we were both pleased with the final product. The Snark triumphed and our headline withstood the doubts of McSmartAss Smurf (who once again did a fabulous job with the graphics and layout).

Another happy ending in TGIF land : )

Let's reconsider that grammar Nazi comment...

Yes, this is an actual email exchange. Only the names have been changed to protect the geeky...I mean guilty.

From: McSmartAss Smurf
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 1:40 PM
To: Mockette
Cc: Scornette
Subject:

While we're Mocking and Scorning, this should say "This week (apostrophe!)s TGIF cover..." and "... a show neither of us watch", not "watches". -- McSAS

“This weeks TGIF cover - it was interesting researching and writing about a show neither of us watches, but I think we captured the essence of the show. If you actually watch the show - let us know how we did.”

From: Mockette
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 1:40 PM
To: McSmartAss Smurf
Cc: Scornette
Subject: Re:

Smartass...ok...I'll fix it : /

...and I went back and forth on the watch - vs - watches.

From: Scornette
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:01 PM
To: McSmartAss Smurf
Cc: Mockette
Subject: Re: RE:

My vote: "neither watches," Neither being a pronoun meaning "not one
OR the other" - the "us" is just the object of the preposition, not
the subject of the clause.

As for the apostrophe - oops. Well, we're entitled to a mistake
occasionally - it keeps the haters pacified MCSAS!

From: McSmartAss Smurf
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:21 PM
To: Scornette
Cc: Mockette
Subject: Re: RE: RE:

Well, that inspired an absolute FLURRY of activity, with n00bs and curmudgeons alike vehemently arguing their respective positions.

Since the sentence changes tense in the middle (from past tense to present), that also compounds the problem. We finally agreed that the sentence should be written in such a way as to avoid the problem, thusly: "...A show neither of us have (has?) ever watched..." – MCSAS

From: Scornette
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:31 PM
To: McSmartAss Smurf; Mockette
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE:

The singular / plural issue would be the same in the rewritten sentence. I'm still going with the singular - has.

Even so, I'm not entirely convinced we can say that the sentence "changes" tense in the middle; rather, the clause "neither of us watches" is an adjectival clause describing show (with the relative pronoun "that" omitted, but understood) and is thereby not constrained by the tense of the independent clause. The fact is, we researched (in the past) a show that neither of us (continuously) watches.

But perhaps I'm grasping at straws here. Ask a curmudgeon; I'm sick of the evolution of language for the moment. Friggin "texters!"

From: McSmartAss Smurf
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Mockette; Scornette
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:

I will defer to your learnin' on the subject, but can't resist arguing... How do you determine the singularity or pluralness of has and have? I have and we have, but she has? I'll have to agree with our editor "The Brick" who, while not even in the building, would demand we write around the problem altogether, perhaps using "... a show we have never watched". -- McSAS (insert Chief Inspector Dreyfus twitch here)

From: Scornette
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:01 PM
To: McSmartAss Smurf; Mockette
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:

Third person:

Singular (he/she/it) = has

Plural (they) = have

Right? Am I totally making stuff up now? I wouldn't put it past me.

In Plain Sight

This week's TGIF cover - it was interesting researching and writing about a show neither of us watches, but I think we captured the essence of the show. If you actually watch "In Plain Sight" - let us know how we did.

No Acceptions!

We’ve all been there. Driving down the road and there is a sign propped up against a sofa in a yard “For sell” or the menu at the restaurant that says “Faxed orders now excepted.” Like me, I’m sure many of you find the urge to laugh is often in direct competition with the urge to cry. Easy access to home computers and printers has made every small business owner, plumber, dog breeder, and soccer mom believe they can do any print job all by themselves, and no - they don’t need no stinking proof reader!


No, we are not grammar Nazis. Yes, anyone can make a mistake. That is why it is important to let someone else look at any item, sign, or story before it goes “to press.” Please share your experiences with grammatical eccentricities in the comments.

p.s. - please report any typos in this story or any future stories to mockette@biteme.com.

p.s.s - sigh...really if you see a typo please let us know. Maybe we can fix it before anyone else sees it...thanks.

Bedtime Stories

Nearly a year ago now, I read Have I Ever Told You How Lucky You Are? by Dr. Seuss to my daughter for the first time. It’s one of the few Dr. Seuss books that we didn’t have when she was smaller (and slightly more docile), and ever since she's been able to grab, she usually won’t let me get through more than two pages or so of any book before she takes over and makes up her own story to go along with the pictures. So, that night she was feeling lazy I guess, and I got to read the whole thing and really experience the message being offered up there. And I’m not really sure what to do with it. The message, I mean.

It starts off with this kid standing near a sort of yogi / meditation guru type – long white hair, robe, whatnot – who, I guess due to his super chill mental Zen, is sitting all cross legged and nonchalant atop a cactus. So the kid’s looking kind of wary as the wise old man starts narrating a story about how he should never complain. Instead, if he gets the urge to complain, he should think about all the other poor suckers in the world who have it worse than he does. The old dude describes all of these scenes to the kid about people who seem, at least to my adult mind and to the stated point of the story, to be pretty screwed in the ridiculous situations they’re in. It’s kind of funny, and completely suits the way people determine the acceptability of their situations based on comparisons with other people (at least I think it’s a pretty general method of self-assessment). If there are enough people worse off than you, you’re doing alright. Right? Just be thankful for what you’re not going through. But sharing this sentiment with my four year old didn’t sit well. Especially because I felt like I was imposing it. At first I thought she just didn’t get it. I mean, she’s a pretty bright kid, but I realized that from the first page she was totally missing the point of this story.

And then I realized that maybe it wasn’t that she didn’t get it, it was just that she didn’t accept it. She’d look at the pictures of the people in these humorous but hopeless situations, and instead of saying, “Wow! Sucks to be that guy. Go me!” she’d start brainstorming with her awesome kid mind about different ways we might be able to help the guy solve his problem. Even the guy on the cactus. On the first page. When she saw him she kind of crinkled up her nose and suggested, “He could just sit on the ground, you know. I bet that cactus has pointy things on top.” And, I mean, right? WTF? Get off the effing cactus! And while you’re at it, stop being satisfied that you’re life doesn’t suck as bad as someone else’s.

Is this how we start training our kids in the complaisance that may be the main obstacle to social progress? I mean, I know you could read this book in a different way, and that children start at a ridiculously early age wanting everything and being completely selfish and not even aware that other people have bigger problems than they do, but must we gratify ourselves with the extremes? I mean, I realize that perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, a cactus needle in your ass is not the worst thing ever, but does that mean you just leave it there? Sit down on a cactus without a care in the world? Might the needles in your ass be distracting you from the ways you could be helping other people with their bigger problems? Could you not, with a modicum of forethought, avoid cacti entirely while working toward the greater good? Or, if not, couldn’t you just pull the needle out of your ass and then go start a recycling campaign or a food drive or something?

BANNED IN THE USA

Ok...so mostly just Frankfort. This is our banned TGIF cover. The term "Omnisexual" combined with a show focused on sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular was just a bit to edgy for the powers-that-be.